���˿���

When will taxpayers know what they have to pay, and the date that they have to pay it by?

On that basis, it is not the availability of capital in the short run that has been the problem. You are setting out a series of other very reasonable issues, but it is not the availability of capital that has been the issue.

The £30 million that will be raised by the levy is less than 2 per cent—1.76 per cent—of the overall cost. I know that the levy will raise £30 million per annum, but that is less than 2 per cent of the £1.7 billion that you identified.

Given the evidence that we have had so far from the industry and stakeholders, I am sure that the delay that you have announced today will be welcome. Have you just picked an arbitrary date? For instance, for the levy in England, clarity on the rates that were to be set was provided 18 months before the commencement of the tax to allow for investment planning. Would it be better to have that kind of window in our legislation rather than a 2028 start date, or are you confident that, by the middle of 2026, the Scottish Government will have passed all the secondary legislation and have all the details in place, particularly given that we have an election in that period? That feels to me to be quite ambitious.

There has been a decision to delay the equivalent tax—I am sorry; I should say “the non-equivalent tax”—in the rest of the UK. Was that decision made partly on that basis—that is, to give companies sight of that information?

I am thinking about this on a policy level, too. The “polluter-pays principle” is the term that has been used, but many companies that build houses have never used the products in question—the products that have put lives at risk—and never will. Nevertheless, they are being asked to pay the levy. You have to maintain relationships with the sector, so is that “polluter pays” term language that you have used, and do you think that it is appropriate with regard to this tax?

It is nice to see you all. In paragraph 6.3 of your submission, you say that the Scottish building safety levy

“does not have a UK-wide equivalent. The closest parallel is the ... England-only Building Safety Levy”.

Is that not an equivalent? I do not quite understand the distinction. Can you tell us the distinction between the two levies? Why you do not believe that to be an equivalent levy? After all, it essentially does the same thing.

I thank the committee for its continued interest in the petition, particularly given the workload that the convener has outlined. You covered a lot of ground in your lengthy introduction, convener, including some of the things that I was going to say, given the lack of progress that has been made since we last met and considered the petition, back in April.

We had the round table in Parliament, and the clearest outcome of that was the emerging cross-party consensus, which is represented in the letter that we copied to the convener and the committee members, that the law is not working.

I note the response from the cabinet secretary to the committee. The word used regarding this kind of inquiry is “rare”, but such inquiries have been non-existent since the legislation was passed—there has not been a single one. It would test the credibility of the definition to say that, of the approximately 1,000 deaths of Scots abroad, none would be able to meet that test.

I also recognise the description of the difference between the systems in England and Wales and in Scotland, in terms of process and intent. However, we have to be clear that, although they are not directly comparable, we can see some instances where people have received some level of clarity about the circumstances in which their loved ones have passed away abroad, and some level of closure for their families. That has not been available to Scots who face those circumstances.

I think that there is a contradiction in what the cabinet secretary has written to the committee in her letter. On 10 October, the First Minister signalled a willingness to look again at the legislation. He told a journalist that he had met Mr Cornock, and he said:

“I understand entirely the concerns that he has, and would want to see those addressed.”

That was in the aftermath of the round table and the emerging cross-party consensus. There is a weight of growing evidence and concern that the law has not worked.

Another issue that was not covered in your opening, convener—and it would not be—was the 30 October communication to Dave Doogan MP from Hamish Falconer MP, who is the Minister for Middle East and North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It stated that the FCDO in the UK

“can intervene in a case should concerns be raised regarding the pace, quality and/or progress of any investigation or trial”

in that jurisdiction. It also said:

“If a family have serious concerns that their loved one died in suspicious circumstances, they should raise this with the local UK police, who can contact the foreign competent authority through policing channels.”

Having taken that advice from the FCDO, the Cornocks spoke to and were interviewed by Police Scotland on more than two occasions, and Police Scotland produced a major incident report stating that it was suspicious about the younger David Cornock’s death and the quality of the investigation. On both occasions, the processes were closed down by superiors within Police Scotland. I do not think that the system is working. It is not working on the basis of process and it is not working on the basis of the law.

In closing, I have three requests that the committee might consider. The first is that the committee might write to the cabinet secretary again, in the light of that cross-party letter, and ask her for a more considered response, particularly given the words of the First Minister, which I have put on the record today.

Given what I have just said about the police, the committee might also consider lending its weight to helping me and my constituent to secure a meeting with the chief constable. Considering the committee’s meeting this morning, you clearly have better success with that than we do. It would be useful if you were able to write in that regard.

I also recognise that, in recent weeks, you have had cabinet secretaries at committee meetings to talk about a variety of petitions. If the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will be in front of you at some point as part of your work programme, might we be able to put some questions to her on this issue? If she will not be, I am sure that she would agree that it would be a good use of her time to answer some questions on it, given the growing cross-party consensus.

I greatly appreciate the committee’s forbearance, considering its workload. Deaths abroad are an incredibly serious issue that affects many families across Scotland, and the committee is doing sterling work in trying to support my constituent in that regard.

In the submissions and the evidence that we have received so far, the polluter-pays principle has been highlighted, but it strikes me from what you have said today and from reading the bill that many people who are not polluters will be asked to pay, too. Is that correct?

In essence, house builders are meeting a public need and providing a public good, and are building good houses for people to live good lives in, but they are being called polluters. I understand that parts of the sector have done bad things—if we want to use Mr Mason’s terms—and I can understand why some of that language is used, but some companies must find such a description a little bit difficult to wear.